PETA might have gone too far. Yes, they frequently go too far with their stunt-queen theatrics, but now they’re picking on one of our most beloved (Muslim) actors, Liam Neeson. While promoting his latest film, The Grey, overseas, Liam mentioned that he had tried wolf meat. This caused PETA to basically issue a fatwa against Liam and The Grey – which if you don’t know by now, is a film about Liam doing hand-to-hand combat with some wolves or something.

Liam Neeson’s latest movie is facing a boycott after the actor admitted eating wolf stew to prepare for the role. The Irish actor has the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals up in arms over his method acting for The Grey in which he plays the leader of a group being hunted by wolves after their plane crashes in the Arctic.

“It was very gamey,” he said while promoting the hit movie. “But I’m Irish, so I’m used to odd stews. I can take it. Just throw a lot of carrots and onions in there and I’ll call it dinner.”

Neeson, 59, further infuriated PETA by saying that while others got sick he “went up for seconds.”

In a statement, the animal rights group said: “Neeson’s stance on kindness to animals is sorely out of step with the rest of the world.”

They then urged movie-goers: “Don’t just shy away. Run away from The Grey.”

While most of the wolf scenes were shot using special effects, PETA claims the film’s director, Joe Carnahan, ordered wolf carcasses from a trapper for some of the footage.

“Many animals caught in traps chew off their own limbs in order to escape,” said Jane Dollinger, a spokeswoman for PETA. “These animals go on to die of gangrene or other secondary infections, sometimes leaving nursing puppies abandoned to fend for themselves.”

Despite the outrage The Grey has been a box office hit. The film’s producers declined to comment on the protests.

[From Radar]

Wait, so is PETA mad that some real wolf carcasses were used in the film, or were they mad about Liam eating wolf meat? Or both? I kind of think PETA should have just focused on the wolf carcass issue, because that’s a seemingly more valid argument. If you tell me about wolves having to chew off their own legs, I’ll get upset. If you tell me Liam Neeson ate two helpings of wolf stew, I’ll shrug.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

When Reese Witherspoon was called out by PETA for carrying a (gorgeous) python handbag, Reese didn’t respond at all to their letter about the poor pythons suffering for fashion and instead just started using a different bag. In Reese’s case, she was able to ignore PETA but tacitly acknowledge them by putting the bag away, and PETA gloated about it a little. They’re an insufferable organization and Reese probably knows that it’s best not to directly address them. Well Matt Damon can’t say the same. PETA called him out for attending a bullfight in Mexico (photos are here and he looks like he’s having a great time), and then he personally called them and said that he doesn’t support bullfighting, that bullfighting is awful, and that he was just doing research or something.

We wrote to Matt Damon as soon as pictures of him at a Mexican bullfight surfaced—and within 24 hours, he personally telephoned PETA Vice President Lisa Lange to correct the false impression that he had given,” PETA’s Jane Dollinger tells RadarOnline.com.

“Matt said that he went to the bullfight believing that bullfights should be stopped but felt that he should see the cruelty for himself while he was in Mexico. He said that seeing with his own eyes what these tormented animals go through only reinforced an already strongly held belief that bullfights should be relegated to the history books.

“He also said that he was upset to think that his attendance was in any way construed to be an endorsement of such a barbaric activity.”

[From Radar]

This is the right stance to take on bullfighting, and I’ll give Matt Damon this – he probably called them instead of issuing a statement because he wanted to get the least publicity for this as possible. Knowing PETA, he had to realize that they would go public with this information about his shameless ass-kissery. I guess I don’t blame him. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t where PETA is concerned. I’m surprised they don’t issue press releases whenever a celebrity is photographed eating a steak. You know they would do it if they could get away with it.

Matt Damon and his wife, Luciana, are shown at the Contagion premiere on 9/7 and at the Venice Film Festival on 9/3. Credit: Fame and WENN.com

PETA’s latest “don’t eat meat or you’re a bad person” ad attempts to guilt trip little kids by asking them if they would eat the family dog for Thanksgiving. (In some cultures, they would.) It’s just the latest headline-grabbing tactic from an organization known more for outrageous and offensive ads than promoting animal welfare. I googled “PETA cannibalism ads” to see if they’ve ever equated eating meat with eating other humans, and of course they have. In 2008 they used a high profile murder on a bus, in which the murderer ate part of the victim, to draw comparisons to the plight of animals in slaughterhouses. They also regularly use human models to pose as potential meat. So this isn’t that ridiculous compared to their other ads. Here’s more:

Thanksgiving may make you feel grateful for everything you have or it may be an insufferable meal with relatives you avoid the rest of the year, but chances are you don’t think it’s a day to fry up the family pet. That, however, is exactly what should be at the forefront of your mind, according to the animals rights group PETA.

Known for shock tactics and in-your-face ads, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has launched an advertising campaign aimed at the family feasting holiday. The billboard, which pictures an animal that’s a cross between a dog and a turkey, reads: “Kids: If You Wouldn’t Eat Your Dog, Why Eat a Turkey?”

“Kids love animals and if they thought about how turkeys feel pain and fear just as dogs and cats do, they’d trade in their drumsticks for Tofurky in a heartbeat,” said PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. “This Thanksgiving, families can give all animals something to be thankful for by sticking to humane, delicious vegan meals.”

According to PETA, more than 40 million turkeys are killed in the U.S. every year for Thanksgiving dinners. Earlier today, Patch reported that HoneyBaked plans to sell 7.99 million pounds of Thanksgiving ham and turkey in Georgia alone.

The group said they plan to run the child-targeted ad in Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee and Utah.

In 2009, PETA produced a commercial it wanted to run on NBC during the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade, but the peacock network rejected the anti-gobbler spot, saying it wasn’t up to standards.

[From Huffington Post via ONTD]

At this point, my response to PETA is just to roll my eyes and let out a sigh. I want to quote this commenter on HuffPo, atds, that really summed up my issue with them:

“I’m 99% vegetarian­. I eat fish once in a while, and will eat bird if I have to for a social situation. PETA’s problem is their absolutism­; no one wants to go cold turkey, and a holiday that’s basically symbolized by meat is the worst time you could possibly try to convince someone to start. They could reduce meat consumptio­n a lot more if they took a less harsh, more gradual approach and used a wider variety of arguments.”

One of my favorite campaigns to increase awareness of the benefits of vegetarianism and adopting a less meat-centric diet is “No Meat Mondays,” which just encourages people not to eat meat one day of the week. (I’m not a vegetarian, but my parents are and I do try and limit the amount of meat I eat, mostly for my health.)

The thing is, if PETA was more moderate and reasonable in their approach, we would barely talk about them. As it is, they are experts in pissing people off without doing much for the cause.

Here’s that 2009 ad that HuffPo mentions in the above quoted article. If you think of that little girl as Lisa Simpson, it makes it kind of funny.

This dog turkey is so cute!

I really didn’t expect the complete freakout over Reese Witherspoon’s python bag, and PETA’s public slamming of Reese for carrying a python and leather bag. Nor did I expect to be so soundly criticized for simply remarking that the bad was and is gorgeous (in my opinion) and I would love to own a purse that pretty. E’rybody FREAKED. Well, after PETA issued their fatwa against Reese for carrying the nearly $4000 Chloe python-and-leather bag, they’re now taking credit because Reese is apparently not going to use the bag anymore. What’s confusing is that I don’t think Reese promised anything or issued any kind of statement, she was just spotted out and about using another purse, this time a fabric purse.

Who wants to take Reese Witherspoon shopping for a new purse? At the insistence of PETA, the 35-year-old Oscar winner has hung up her Chloe purse for good. The python handbag, called the Paraty, retails for $3,820 on Net-a-Porter.

After Witherspoon was seen toting the bag around L.A., PETA sent her a video (ironically narrated by her Walk the Line costar Joaquin Phoenix) that highlighted the cruel methods used in the exotic-skins industry.

“We’ve long known Reese to be a kind person, so we’re pleased — and not surprised — that she is hanging up her python bag for good,” PETA told Gossip Cop in a statement.

“We hope Reese’s honest mistake will serve as a reminder for all of us to be extra-certain that what we’re buying is mock croc or fake snake.”

PETA later sent Witherspoon flowers after she vowed never to carry the purse again.

Where and how the Water for Elephants star got the Chloe bag remains a mystery: California banned the sale of snakeskin in 1970.

[From Us Weekly]

So, controversy over? I have a question: when PETA has a successful fatwa and someone agrees to stop using a python bag, or a fur coat, or leather or what have you, what happens to the product that is “discarded” by the celebrity? Like, what is Reese going to do with that python bag now? Is it just going to sit in her closet? Is she going to donate it somewhere? If she’s going to donate it, can she send it to me?

Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.

Don’t make the same mistake I made, which was to simply stare at Reese Witherspoon’s gorgeous handbag and whisper, “I want to go there.” It’s a really great purse, right? Well, too bad. It’s a $4000 Chloe, and if you live in California, it’s against the law for you to buy this bag. For why? Because it’s made of python, and there are laws against that, and now PETA is super-pissed at Reese for owning such a beautiful and horrible bag:

As Elle Woods in Legally Blonde she was obsessed with her collection of handbags. But Reese Witherspoon’s most recent personal acquirement has landed her in hot water with animal rights groups, as she was spotted with a $4,000 python skin purse illegal in California.

While the Oscar-winning actress, 35, will not be in trouble with the law, she has been criticised for carrying the exclusive Chloe Paraty python and leather bag. The Walk The Line star could not have purchased the item in California, as it has been illegal to sell the material there since 1970.

A spokeswoman for animal rights charity PETA told the Mail: ‘No matter how much Reese paid for that bag, the animals paid a much higher price.

‘Every year, millions of snakes are impaled on hooks or nailed to trees by their heads and skinned alive. Hoses are inserted into the mouths of large snakes—like pythons—and their bodies are pumped full of water to loosen their skin so that it will cut away more easily. The animals’ peeled, writhing bodies are then discarded, and it often takes days for the animals to die from the effects of shock and dehydration.’

The spokeswoman also said the charity hopes it is a case of ignorance rather than malice on Reese’s part.

She said: ‘We can’t imagine that she’d wish to contribute to this hidden suffering, especially for something as frivolous as a fashion accessory that can be replicated with no bloodshed. These days, it’s easy to have a look that kills without killing, with fake snake, mock croc, python pleather, and other designer items that pay tribute to the beauty of these animals without massacring them.’

Ironically Reese has previously been voted the world’s sexiest vegetarian by animal rights group PETA.

The group has promised to send her an undercover video expose hosted by her Walk The Line co-star Joaquin Phoenix about the cruelty behind the exotic skins industry.

According to RadarOnline, under the California Penal Code Section 653o it is unlawful to import python into California for commercial purposes. This includes possession with intent to sell, or sell within the state. However, it is not illegal if someone purchases python elsewhere and brings it in.

The python Chloe bag is on sale online in black for an eye-watering $3,820, not including sales tax. Other celebrities criticised for having python skin bags include Kylie Minogue and Eva Longoria. The ethical hot potato has seen fashion houses such as Victoria’s Secret, H&M, Overstock.com, Cole Haan, and Nike sign PETA’s pledge promising never to sell exotic skins due to the cruelty.

[From The Mail]

I mean, sure. Poor snakes. Poor pythons. That’s rough. But g-ddamn, that’s a really beautiful bag. The problem with synthetic leathers and fake skins is that no one ever uses the synthetic stuff to make a bag this pretty. Show me a fake leather bag this pretty, and I’ll totally buy it. For now, though, I’m looking to see if I can get my hands on this one. Go ahead and yell at me! It’s gorgeous.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

The story of all the slaughtered exotic animals in Ohio makes me incredibly sad, especially after seeing the photo of the poor creatures laid out dead on the grass. You wonder if authorities could have handled it more humanely and if the lives of those endangered animals could have been saved. It’s no one’s fault except for the awful man who collected them and set them free, and police were just trying to make sure that no one was harmed. I wonder if they could have done it differently and asked for large animal veterinarians to help before they shot them dead, but it’s hard to judge from the outside. The Human Society has issued a statement that they “do not fault [authorities] for using lethal force” in that case. This article on CNN explains how tranquilizer darts don’t work as effectively or quickly as we might think, and can actually agitate animals and make them more dangerous. Cops may have legitimately feared for their lives and the lives of nearby citizens and may have had no other way to defend themselves than to put the animals down.

A lot of people are saying that no one should have been permitted to privately own that many exotic animals at once, or really at all. I guess they’re relatively simple to obtain at auction and there are no regulations against ownership of wild animals in Ohio. Never one to pass up an opportunity for publicity, rabid animal rights group PETA is asking the upcoming Cameron Crowe film, We Bought a Zoo, to include a warning against ownership of exotic pets in its promotional materials and on screen during the credits. We Bought a Zoo is out on December 23, 2011 and stars Matt Damon and Scarlet Johansson.

Based on Benjamin Mee’s memoir, the film stars Damon as a father who moves his family to the countryside to help save a struggling zoo. Johansson plays a keeper at the animal park, which is home to an assortment of lions, tigers, zebras and bears, among other creatures.

PETA says it has sent a letter to Zoo director Cameron Crowe urging him to include a warning at the end of the movie about the dangers of owning wild animals.

“We Bought a Zoo conveys the misleading and downright dangerous message that no special knowledge—just a lot of heart—is needed to run a zoo,” PETA’s Lisa Lange said in a statement.

“As the tragedy in Ohio gruesomely illustrates, wild animals aren’t Disney characters. They have very special needs that all too often aren’t met by people who buy them on a whim because they think it would be cool to own a tiger.”

PETA has asked Crowe to also insist that 20th Century Fox, the studio behind the film, include warnings on all marketing materials, including movie posters.

There are up to 15,000 captive big cats in the U.S., mostly privately owned, according to the animal rights group.

A rep for Fox did not immediately comment.

[From E! Online]

I hate that I’m defending PETA here, but it’s actually a reasonable request and they’re not mocking anyone or sounding especially rude in the letter they’ve sent to Crowe. (That we can tell.) It’s not like they’re calling for a boycott of the film, or the movie to be pulled or anything. Compared to some of the crap they usually pull, this is pretty “tame.” It’s also quite clever, for PETA, in that they’re using a recent event to raise awareness and sympathy without alienating people by condemning anyone. I’m sure they’ll do something next week that’s just as outrageous as we’ve come to expect from them, though.

Here’s the trailer for We Bought a Zoo. It looks really good and that child actress is adorable.

As you may remember, ever since I saw candid photos of Kelly Brook in a bikini, I’ve been a fan girl for Kelly. I used to not care that much about her, but her spectacular hourglass figure has made me a true believer. So I shall lay it down on the line for my lady: this new PETA ad is fug as hell. Kelly’s strength is not her face, but once you get past gawking at her body, she is much, much prettier than this. PETA Photoshopped Kelly to look ridiculously unattractive. Not only that, it seems like they airbrushed out part of her jaw, right? Like, that’s not even the SHAPE of her face. Here’s a photo of Kelly from last night – just a paparazzi photo of going into a fashion event:

So much better in candid photos.

Anyway, Kelly is taking part in PETA’s “Whose Skin Are You In?” campaign. Kelly was shot by Bryan Adams (ugh), and the point of the campaign is to “protest at how snakes, lizards and alligators and other exotic animals are skinned alive.” Kelly said, “It makes my skin crawl to think about the violent ways snakes, lizards, alligators and other exotic creatures are raised and killed for boots, bags and belts. Our message is to support the designers who are creative without being destructive, and go for the great fakes that pay tribute to the animals’ beauty without killing them.” Sure. I don’t own any exotic-skin handbags, so personally, I guess I’m okay with this. Except for the part where I kind of want an alligator-skin purse.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

A couple of years ago I made the mistake of downloading a PDF from PETA with vegetarian recipes. A few pages in I was confronted by pretty violent imagery of factory farming conditions. It turned my stomach and while I felt awful for the animals I was also pretty annoyed at PETA for hiding that crap in what looked like an innocuous recipe booklet. Plus it felt disingenuous. I was already seeking out vegetarian recipes and while I’m a meat eater I work hard to limit my meat consumption. (My dad has been a vegetarian for 20 years.) Having someone shove that stuff in my face made me less likely to listen to their message.

Anyway PETA is about to do the same thing in a sort-of porn website that will probably look like softcore stuff at first and end up making hapless dudes lose their wood and lunch. Gross.

PETA plans to register itself to operate the www.peta.xxx Web site.

“We are preparing to launch our own peta.xxx site, but instead of just showing people our iconic ads we then show them how animals suffer for entertainment,” said spokeswoman Ashley Byrne, according to the Herald Sun.

“Our racier actions are sometimes a way to get people to sit up and pay attention to the plight of animals,” she said.

Internet surfers who visit the x-rated site will initially be presented with animal rights groups too salacious for TV ads and campaigns. However, the sexy side of PETA, illustrated in its galleries and videos will give way to the horrific mistreatment of animals on factory farms, with pictures and video shot undercover by the group’s hidden camera investigations.

It will have enough adult content to qualify for the XXX domain site but also some other graphic images of animals that viewers may not expect to see.

“We live in a 24 hour news cycle world and we learn the racy things we do are sometimes the most effective way that we can reach particular individuals,” PETA spokeswoman, Lindsay Rajt, told Huffington Post.

[International Herald Tribune via Jezebel]

So I guess this is a heads up that you’re better off not visiting the PETA “porn” site. I doubt they’re going full-out graphic stuff, although you know they’ll show graphic footage of animals being slaughtered.

Here’s PETA’s “banned” super bowl ad. There isn’t anything other than sexy stuff in this video, but I can’t speak for any videos they might link from here.

This video is maybe the funniest thing I’ve seen in days. This is a behind-the-scenes video of Elisabetta Canalis’s photo shoot for PETA. She’s the latest “I’d rather go naked then yadda, whatever” campaign. I mean, hey, I don’t wear fur either, but I’m not a raving lunatic about it. And it takes about four seconds before you realize that Elisabetta has absolutely no clue what PETA is about, she just showed up and took off her clothes and posed her Adam’s apple off.

Eli says, for the record, “Doing PETA’s campaign has always been my dream… This is the best reason why I get naked in my life.” I love all of her little farty-face poses around the thirty-second mark. Too wonderful. Like, she’s talking about little animals dying and that makes her want to pout and look coquettish.

I still don’t know what “bluging them” means… she is talking about how animals are killed, and I make out “electrocuted” but then she “bluging them”. Is that, like, “bludgeoning”?

As far as her body… uh… sure, she’s got some good parts. But… I don’t know. Her skin looks really loose, like Iggy Pop’s. And her drag queen face is still upsetting.

Screencaps.

While I think it’s pretty dumb to wear fur at this point, I also think it’s kind of mean to pick on poor Queen Elizabeth II. QEII wore some kind of (fox?) fur hat on Christmas day, plus a coat with a matching fur trim. And now PETA and various British animal rights groups are all up in arms. QEII is really old, though – my point being that she probably still thinks she’s living in a time when fur trimmings are considered the height of fashion. Plus, it’s really cold. What is she supposed to wear to church, polar fleece? Eh. Here’s more from The Daily Mail:

The Queen and the Duchess of Cornwall came under fire from animal rights campaigners ­yesterday after they both wore fur hats on Christmas Day. The Russian-style hats they wore to attend a church service in ­Sandringham with other members of the Royal Family were made from fur from different types of fox, claimed experts.

Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, said: ‘This strikes me as an ostentatious display of cruelty. To parade fur in 2010 says something unpleasant about the person wearing it.’

The Cossack-style hat worn by Camilla was made from ‘vintage fur’, by designer milliner Philip Treacy, using a piece of fur which had previously belonged to the duchess’s mother.

A spokesman for the Queen said she could not confirm if Her Majesty’s cream-coloured hat and matching coat trim were made from real fur but experts said they were convinced it was. Many fashion designers continue to use fur in their collections, and campaigners have expressed fears that it has come back into style. They have called on celebrities and members of the Royal Family to ‘set a good example’ by ­choosing not to wear animal pelts.

The Queen has worn fur in the past and her official robes for State occasions are trimmed with ermine, the winter coat of the stoat.

Camilla faced anger from animal rights organisations last year, when she wore fur twice during an official visit to Canada. First she wore a grey rabbit stole when she visited Newfoundland, together with a hat trimmed with fake fur. She then donned a calf-length cape lined with grey fox fur. Both pieces were said to have been ‘refashioned’ from vintage fur that had belonged to her grandmother, Sonia Cubitt, Baroness Ashcombe, whose mother, Alice Keppel, was a mistress of Edward VII.

The ethical question of ‘recycling’ vintage fur has split opinion, but Mr Tyler said: ‘It doesn’t matter when the animal was killed, it’s a body part and a product of cruelty.’

In 2000 Prince Edward’s wife Sophie apologised after she was seen wearing a fox fur hat. The Countess of Wessex said her decision to wear the hat on a skiing holiday in St Moritz, Switzerland, was ‘an error of judgment’.

Legislation to ban fur farming in Britain was passed that same year following a lengthy campaign ­highlighting the physical and ­psychological distress suffered by animals in some fur farms.

However, it remains legal to import fur and in China, now the world’s leading fur exporter, millions of animals who are killed for their fur are often skinned alive, according to the campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

A Peta spokesman said: ‘Britain is a nation of animal lovers and more than 90 per cent of Britons refuse to wear fur. We hope that Her Majesty will choose to wear something more humane in future, that better reflects the values of the British people.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Should the Queen “set a good example”? Sure. They’re doing great things with faux fur (I have a faux snow leopard hoodie that the Queen can borrow!), and it would be cool to see the Queen embrace faux fur. Also – we have no proof that she’s wearing real fur, you know? Sure, it looks like real fur, and it probably is. But I await the Queen’s official statement, I’m just saying.